[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Do we need a BOF at next IETF meeting
It's not a decision as much as it was an observation - so far there has been no BOF requests sent to IESG for this. If there was one, IESG/IAB would make a decision about it. Sorry for making this sound like a decisions - I did not mean to do that.
I also got some private email about other forms of meeting... One of the major reasons for having a IETF meeting is for folks to get together, talk, and sort things out. Certainly if some people decide to go find a bar and do some work, well some of the best IETF work is done that way - that is great. You certainly don't need anyones permissions for that.
Other groups have used ad-hoc meetings at times. As an example, the p2psip folks have got lots of useful work done in ad-hoc meetings. That needs an AD to sponsor them but the bar is much lower than for a BOF or WG meeting. Part of the high bar of BOF is that it needs to be clear what is going to get discussed well in advance. On the other hand some ad-hoc meetings get arranged on pretty short notice.
One of the problems with any sort of meeting for this particular topic is that it is very difficult to book it at a time when all the critical people can make it. Anything that conflicts with 1/2 of RAI and 1/3 of Security is going to be brutal to find a time that works - at the last RTPSEC BOF we had no other RAI meetings at the same time and no Security meetings that the Security ADs had to be at. Some times the problem with ad-hoc meetings is that if only 1/3 of the required people show up or the agenda and topics are wrong and you end up moving things backwards instead of forwards.
If the folks on the list have idea what we need to do to move forward, I'm game to try and help make it happen. 

Cullen

On Sep 20, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
I am surprised by this decision. I think we can put together an agenda to have a discussion to keep it live and public. Given that the IETF meets so infrequently, and given that this topic is of interest to many people, why postpone the discussion. I think there are sufficient number of volunteers to make some much needed progress at the meeting. 

thanks,
Lakshminath

At 05:55 PM 9/20/2006, Cullen Jennings wrote:


I and the other ADs have certainly heard that there's a lot of energy
and interest in this problem, but given that none of the major drafts
have been updated since Montreal, it does not seem that that the work
is in a sufficiently coordinated state to construct an agenda for a
good BoF in San Diego. This is partly my fault for just not having
time to drive the list discussion the way I should have, but that
doesn't make us any closer to being ready.

Over the next few months I hope that Jon, Russ, Dan and I along with
the draft authors can drive some better on-list discussion with the
intention to have a BoF on this topic in Prague.

On Sep 20, 2006, at 12:40 AM, Fries, Steffen wrote:


Hi,
I strongly agree. I don't think we will have just one solution for key 
management but reducing the options would better ensure
interoperability
between different implementations.

I think the BoF at the last IETF brought some light into the main
requirements people have for key management for SRTP. Coping with
those
would be the first step and I think the BoF would be good place to
discuss the schemes.

Regards
        Steffen


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-rtpsec@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ietf-rtpsec@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Dan_York@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:28 PM
To: Cullen Jennings; IETF-RTPSEC
Subject: Re: Do we need a BOF at next IETF meeting


Cullen,

I guess the question is - are we any closer to a smaller set
of solutions for key exchange?

At the last BOF we had a good discussion of requirements. I
thought I understood that the next step would be for the
authors of the various proposals to go back and take a look
at their own proposals and whether those proposals should be
altered/merged/etc in light of the proposed requirements.

Have we seen any such revisions? I don't recall seeing any on
this list.

Do we need a face-to-face meeting to hammer away at what is
next?  It might be an effective way to make some progress.  I
realize the odds of us seeing *one* solution are basically
zero, but dropping it down from 11 or 13 solutions would
definitely be desirable.

My 2 cents,
Dan
--
Dan York, CISSP
Dir of IP Technology, Office of the CTO
Mitel Corp.     http://www.mitel.com
dan_york@xxxxxxxxx +1-613-592-2122


----- Original Message -----
From: Cullen Jennings [fluffy@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 09/19/2006 11:04 AM
To: IETF-RTPSEC <ietf-rtpsec@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Do we need a BOF at next IETF meeting



I have not received any requests for BOF - I was sitting on
the fence about if we needed one or not but certainly don't
want to have one if it is not going to be a productive
conversation. Anyways, just wanted to give the list a heads
up that I did not get any requests and unless I get one
Really Really soon (like late today), I don't think we will
be having a BOF at next meeting.